Authored By : Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta

Surya Kant, J.

1. It is not only the petitioners who are victims of red-tapism, the State as an impersonal character is also irreparably injured due to casual approach of its functionaries. The facts of the case would demonstrate it. The petitioners are admittedly owners in possession of the land described in Para Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition. Their land was utilized without any acquisition by the Irrigation Department for construction of New Drain in the year 1970-71. On a hue and cry made by the landowners, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 12.01.1982 and 07.04.1982, respectively but only for the area falling in RD-25820 to RD-46700. Thereafter, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on 16.09.1985 and 16.07.1986, for the area ranging from RD-46700 to RD-55906. Then came another set of notifications issued on 24/25.11.1998 and 04.03.1999 pertaining to the land utilized for construction and re-modeling from RD-23169 to 25820. The turn of notification in respect of the petitioners' land came when notifications dated 22.08.2003 and 02.04.2004 under Sections 4, and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act were issued but no further action was taken and the same were allowed to lapse on 01.04.2006.

2. No fresh acquisition process was started thereafter, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court in CWP No. 9276 of 2010 which was disposed of on 15.03.2011 by relegating them to approach the Land Acquisition Collector for disbursement of compensation.

3. No compensation could obviously be disbursed to them as no award was ever passed regarding the acquisition of their land.

4. The petitioners again came to this Court in CWP No. 14850 of 2012 which too was disposed of on 06.08.2012 relegating them to seek compliance of the order dated 15.03.2011 passed in the earlier writ petition. As there was nothing to be complied with, no compensation was paid to them for want of a formal 'award'.

5. The petitioners, after running from pillar to post, have approached this Court for the third time through this writ petition.

6. On issuance of notice of motion, the blame-game has started between two Land Acquisition Collectors-respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondent No. 4 has accused respondent No. 5 of not sending records and for not transferring the amount of Rs. 26,20,000/- lying with the latter for payment of proportionate compensation to the petitioners.

7. Respondent No. 5 who is present in Court pursuant to a show cause notice issued by this Court states that he could not have transferred the amount for disbursement as the acquisition process had lapsed and there was no award passed in favor of the petitioners.

8. What else can be the crudest example of victimisation of the poor farmers at the hands of the State machinery

9. It is most interesting to note that the authorities in the Irrigation Department have also acted in such a reprehensible and uncalled for manner in depositing the amount of compensation at the Collector's rate "as it prevailed at the time of execution of the drain". None of the respondents have, thus, dealt with the petitioners in a fair, just and non-discriminatory manner.

10. We wonder how to compensate the petitioners

11. On giving a thoughtful consideration to the whole issue, it appears to us that though it will be a partial redressal only of the arduous journey undertaken by the petitioners in knocking at one Forum or the other, yet it would be well within our jurisdictional scope to direct that the land of the petitioners be now acquired by invoking urgency Clause under Section 17 of the Act and they shall be entitled to compensation at the rate as it exists on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act. The petitioners shall in addition, be also entitled to user charges that may be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, in accordance with law. The acquisition proceedings shall be completed and actual compensation be disbursed to the petitioners by 31.01.2014 and submit a compliance affidavit, failing which the Registry is directed to list this matter for initiation of suo-moto Contempt of Court proceedings on 12.02.2014.

12. The petitioners shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- which shall be paid at the first instance by the State Government along with compensation of their acquired land. The Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Haryana is directed to determine and fix the personal responsibility of the officers/officials for the above noticed lapses and the cost amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall then be recovered proportionately from such officers/officials who are held responsible. A compliance affidavit in this regard shall also be filed before 31.05.2014. Disposed of.Dasti.

Surinder Gupta, J.